(b) Child Welfare Violation;

(Partially Accepted Crime: Child Welfare Violation, Injury)

(name of crime partially recognized to Defendant A:

Support for Child Welfare Violation

(c) coercion;

(d) Injury;

(e) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes;

(Similar act to a minor under thirteen years of age)

(f) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes

(Indecent Acts such as minors under thirteen years of age or deceptive means)

A person shall be appointed.

2.(c) ;

I AI

1. As to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal on Defendant B, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, acquitted Defendant B on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the violation of the Child Welfare Act and injury to Defendant B, among the facts charged in the instant case, around October 23, 2012. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of the logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

In addition, even in cases where a sentence of death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for at least ten years is imposed on the defendant, a prosecutor cannot file an appeal on the ground that the punishment is extremely weak (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1687, Apr. 25, 2013).

2. As to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal against Defendant A, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, acquitted Defendant A on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the Defendants’ act of failing to be abandoned, and the violation of the Child Welfare Act, which is the primary charge regarding the act of attracting toilets, and coercion. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and by exceeding

3. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

The argument that the lower court’s failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the grounds for sentencing constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing. However, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, in this case where Defendant A was sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim Shin-chul, Kim Jae-chul, the Republic of Korea

Justices Kim Jong-il